Value-based selling efforts often fizzle after an initial push because companies fail to see beyond the numbers when calculating the economic impact of product or service benefits. While quantifying evidence of benefits is at the heart of value-based selling, it's not enough. Companies can follow a five-step process that builds commitment to joint value creation with their customers and develops a deep mutual understanding of what it can offer and what benefits are meaningful to customers.

No matter how creative and ambitious they may be, nonprofits that rely solely on donations and grants to finance their growth often fall short. One way to improve both funding and impact is to add a "more commercial" strategy to the mix-by charging recipients for what the organization would otherwise provide for free. Though that may sound uncharitable, the authors' research shows that paying nominal fees can give beneficiaries a sense of ownership, boost their engagement, and empower them to demand results. Meanwhile, the revenue from the fees can go back into providing help to even more people. Several nonprofits, including Project Maji, which builds kiosks for clean drinking water in Africa; Gavi, which distributes vaccines; and Worldreader, which provides books to children in low-income countries, have found success with this approach. Using their examples, the authors describe how to set up an effective payment model. Among other things, nonprofits must assess how the needs of beneficiaries vary, educate them about offerings, and share accountability with them. Most important, they must stop defining impact as access to help and take a broader view of results.

The conventional wisdom in e-commerce is that the purchase process should be seamless and fast, lest consumers stop to reconsider their decisions and abandon their carts. But friction that gives them time to think through buying decisions can result in more satisfied, more engaged customers, the authors argue. Different kinds of online sales might benefit from more or less friction; an assessment that accompanies the article can help managers determine what is appropriate in their own situation.

Discount retailer Dollar Bill's has been struggling to maintain its margins over the past two years because of inflationary pressures, delays on imported goods, and decreased foot traffic. Now the board has asked CEO William Fisher Jr. to develop a strategy for raising prices. William worries that raising prices will hurt the company's reputation and alienate customers, but he recognizes that something has to change. Should Dollar Bill's maintain the dollar price point by reducing product quantity, such as repackaging five-packs of chewing gum into four-packs for the same price? Or should it abandon the dollar price point and begin offering an array of more-expensive goods? This fictional case study features expert commentary by Greg Besner, the CEO of Sunflow, and Barrie Carmel, the vice president of pricing at Michaels Stores.

Discount retailer Dollar Bill's has been struggling to maintain its margins over the past two years because of inflationary pressures, delays on imported goods, and decreased foot traffic. Now the board has asked CEO William Fisher Jr. to develop a strategy for raising prices. William worries that raising prices will hurt the company's reputation and alienate customers, but he recognizes that something has to change. Should Dollar Bill's maintain the dollar price point by reducing product quantity, such as repackaging five-packs of chewing gum into four-packs for the same price? Or should it abandon the dollar price point and begin offering an array of more-expensive goods? This fictional case study features expert commentary by Greg Besner, the CEO of Sunflow, and Barrie Carmel, the vice president of pricing at Michaels Stores.

Discount retailer Dollar Bill's has been struggling to maintain its margins over the past two years because of inflationary pressures, delays on imported goods, and decreased foot traffic. Now the board has asked CEO William Fisher Jr. to develop a strategy for raising prices. William worries that raising prices will hurt the company's reputation and alienate customers, but he recognizes that something has to change. Should Dollar Bill's maintain the dollar price point by reducing product quantity, such as repackaging five-packs of chewing gum into four-packs for the same price? Or should it abandon the dollar price point and begin offering an array of more-expensive goods? This fictional case study features expert commentary by Greg Besner, the CEO of Sunflow, and Barrie Carmel, the vice president of pricing at Michaels Stores.

This case follows the evolution of pricing strategy at Echosec Systems, a Canadian open source intelligence firm. The case provides information on pricing as the company grows and diversifies its product offerings.

Joy4Home Brands, the maker of novel houseware items, was gearing up for its launch. The company would be introducing two lines: kitchenware products and storage containers. The initial go-to-market plan called for a direct to consumer (DTC) channel strategy. While Joy4Home had a handle on its customer acquisition efforts, it had yet to determine the DTC pricing for each line. Moreover, two additional opportunities had recently emerged. The first was a B2B opportunity involving a modified kitchenware line, and the second was a brick-and mortar wholesale proposal for larger storage containers. The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) had market research data and other information to help her determine the optimal pricing scheme for these various sales avenues. Recommendations were needed soon.

For thirty-five years, Dollar Tree, a discount retail chain selling general merchandise, had held it fixed price point steady, pricing all of its household items, food, stationery, books, seasonal items, gifts, toys, and clothing that made up its diverse and ever-changing assortment at $1.00. While all other dollar store chains had raised prices over the years to keep up with inflation, Dollar Tree had never budged on its price. However, in late 2021 the company announced that Dollar Tree was "breaking the buck" and raising prices on all goods to $1.25. Would the demise of the $1.00 price point bring about the downfall of Dollar Tree or could the retail chain weather its price change without alienating its price sensitive shoppers through smart marketing, pricing, and branding strategies?

In 2021, Nick Woodman, founder and CEO of GoPro, was reviewing the company's subscription offering, considering whether to extend it beyond benefits that were directly related to the company's iconic camera. Founded in 2002, GoPro had gained renown for its innovative action camera. The brand became synonymous with living an active lifestyle and attracted a strong following on social media. GoPro was a Wall Street favorite when it went public in 2014 at $24 per share, rising to over $90 per share later that year. But just four years later the stock price had slid to $6 per share due to stagnating demand, inventory management issues, bloated expenses, and problems with new product launches. During the COVID-related retail slowdown in 2020, GoPro increased its direct-to-consumer footprint and aggressively marketed a new subscription. The stock price rebounded, in part due to investors placing a higher multiple on the predictable, recurring revenue generated by subscriptions. By 2021, however, subscription benefits were still largely tied to camera ownership. Woodman was considering whether GoPro could leverage its position as an active lifestyle brand to extend the subscription to benefits beyond the camera, similar to the way Amazon packed a host of benefits into Amazon Prime. Woodman saw enormous potential for GoPro's subscription and believed that, someday, it could even become the company's new flagship "product." But how much license did the brand have to grow beyond digital cameras and image capture? What pricing options could the company explore for a bigger, better subscription? In concert with these decisions, should GoPro look to shift even more of its business away from retailers to direct sales?

In July 2021, Sunil Lalvani, founder and CEO of Project Maji, a non-profit social enterprise headquartered in Dubai that had already provided sustainable, clean water solutions to 80,000 people living in rural communities across Ghana and Kenya, was facing an important decision. Traditionally, fees collected from community members covered the operating and maintenance costs of the solar-powered water kiosks, while donations paid the initial capital expenditure and setup costs. Yet Lalvani needed a more scalable financing solution to reach a hefty goal: impacting 1 million lives by 2025. Serving larger, more affluent peri-urban communities was a viable alternative, as the additional revenue could be channeled to rural projects. Thus, Lalvani and his team worked on a pilot for three peri-urban sites and looked to Danone Communities, a venture capital fund that invested in social businesses, to provide a loan. The team mapped out a feasible system, but debated what fees to charge residents. A low price meant that Project Maji would pay off the loan for the first four years, and only then start accumulating funds to support its activities in rural areas. This would delay scaling. Alternatively, a high price, coupled with an offer to establish direct connections in more well-off households, would allow Project Maji to generate excess earned revenue from the get-go, but it would also raise questions of equitability. All of this weighed on Lalvani as he pondered what price point to include in the investment proposal.

In mid-2021, Maaz Sheikh, cofounder and CEO of STARZPLAY, a Dubai-based subscription video on demand (SVOD) provider that catered to the Middle East and North Africa region, was wrestling with how to find the right balance between continued subscriber growth and profitability. Founded in 2015, the company was the first major SVOD player in the region providing high quality and affordable Hollywood content. STARZPLAY rapidly grew its subscriber base through a business model sensitive to the varied tastes and payment preferences of households in the region and was able to maintain leadership even after global players like Netflix and well-funded homegrown companies entered the market. At the time of the case, several U.S. major studios, including the likes of Disney, Paramount, and HBO, were in talks with local operators about potential partnerships. Sheikh needed to prepare an appealing proposal, knowing full well that other regional players were likely doing the same and that these studios might decide to enter independently. He had to think carefully about the company's brand position and its plans regarding content, pricing and payment options, and marketing spend in order to fuel continued growth, while managing the increasing pressure from investors to drive the business toward profitability. Sheikh and his management team had big ambitions for STARZPLAY. What would be the plan that ensured the company continued to prosper despite the mounting competition?

Founded in 2010, Worldreader was an international nonprofit organization that promoted reading to children around the world. For many years, Worldreader distributed e-readers to under-resourced communities and funded its operations primarily through philanthropic donations. In 2019, Worldreader launched the BookSmart mobile reading application, and soon thereafter came the idea of a new, self-perpetuating funding structure: the "flywheel." Worldreader aimed to charge schools and community-based organizations a $6 monthly subscription fee per child to use BookSmart, with the goal of using earned revenue to sustain operational costs and using philanthropy to cover other strategic priorities. However, Worldreader soon realized that ability to pay varied greatly among potential "customers," leading to several exceptions to the initial price. The team also worried that the subscription hindered achieving scale and conflicted with Worldreader's ultimate goal of impacting millions of children. As Co-Founder and CEO David Risher and his team prepared for an upcoming meeting with UNICEF, which typically sought fixed-price contracts, they considered whether a price per-child, per-month would be acceptable. More broadly, they considered whether they had landed on the optimal price point and funding strategy-and the potential implications of pursuing earned revenue on Worldreader's ability to bid for international development grants.

More and more companies are relying on pricing algorithms to maximize profits. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning enables real-time price adjustments based on supply and demand, competitors' activities, delivery schedules, and so forth. But constant price shifts have a downside: They may trigger unfavorable perceptions of a firm's offerings and its brand. It's vital, therefore, to understand and manage the signals being sent by the algorithms. The authors offer real-world examples of companies that have succeeded in this endeavor and others that have not. And they recommend four steps to avoid harm: Determine an appropriate use case for algorithmic pricing and explain its benefits to customers; designate an owner to supervise and be accountable for the system; set and monitor guardrails, both to protect against wild surges and to learn how price changes affect all aspects of the organization; and override the algorithms when necessary.

NiPay is a software provider competing in the Nigerian business-to-business payments market. Founded by Idaku Ibrahim nearly 20 years ago, NiPay sells two products to retailers and other merchants, which enable individual shoppers to transact either online or via a mobile device.

Pearson, which billed itself as the "world's learning company," faced a host of critical decisions in mid-2020. Several years prior, it had embarked on a new path that put the learner at the heart of the business and committed to a new strategic orientation. The new approach, under the heading of "efficacy," was meant to ensure that products and services were developed with measurable outcomes that mattered to learners in mind; and such offerings would further be taken to market with an emphasis on touting their efficacy credentials. While several efficacy reports had been produced on existing products to hone the framework, 2020 marked the first year Pearson launched a new product (the AIDA Calculus app) with efficacy in mind from the get go. As CEO John Fallon, the main architect behind efficacy, neared the end of his tenure at Pearson, he wanted to chart the next phase of the efficacy journey. In particular, should the company develop all its products and services with efficacy as the guiding principle? Which learner outcomes made the most sense to focus on in the future? How could Pearson better communicate efficacy in the marketplace and get it to resonate with various stakeholders-particularly educators and learners? With competitors following suit and using efficacy in their own communications, often without the same rigor that Pearson had applied, how should Pearson combat such "copy-cat" behavior? Was efficacy a pillar upon which to build the Pearson brand? In short, should he and his successor bet the "Pearson farm" on efficacy?

In 2020, the three cofounders of Holaluz, a newcomer to Spain's electricity retail market, are preparing to launch a new offering: installing and managing solar panels on households' roofs at no extra cost for the consumer, who would still benefit from the energy savings stemming from the panels' production. Holaluz would fund the installations via a special purpose vehicle and use the surplus energy to power neighboring Holaluz clients at lower costs. There were many challenges in the new venture, like how to market the offering and if investors would buy into the new business. And what if Holaluz went a step further, got rid of all its tariff offerings and disrupted the market with a monthly "unlimited" flat rate for electricity consumption like telecom operators did with mobile phones bills? Was the market ready?

This exercise serves to help students understand the proper role and use of costs in a firm's pricing decisions. The exercise is designed such that the learning of students evolves across a classroom session, starting from understanding which costs are relevant when setting the price of a product, progressing to a discussion on the wisdom of the traditional "cost-plus" approach to pricing, and ending with a demonstration of how to leverage cost information to construct an iso-profit curve-which, in turn, serves as a useful benchmark to assess possible price changes. These topics emerge as the result of hands-on calculations, where students make recommendations based on the data provided in the exercise, and in-class discussion, where students defend their preferred course of action and reflect on the biases and heuristics that may lead managers to misuse costs in pricing decisions.

Customers ultimately want to pay for meaningful outcomes, not the products and services that presumably deliver them. Today, companies can be increasingly accountable for those outcomes with three kinds of technologically enhanced revenue models. Adopt one to better align your company's success with your customers satisfaction.

Since its launch in 1998 as "the Amazon.com of DVDs," Netflix had evolved from a DVD rental company to a video streaming platform and producer of original films and television shows. As the company matured, it regularly increased prices and adjusted its product offerings while continuing to add new subscribers. However, between late 2019 and mid-2020, competition within the streaming industry intensified with the launch of new entrants such as Disney+, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, jeopardizing Netflix's position as the industry leader. In spite of the heightened competition in the streaming industry, some analysts and customer willingness-to-pay surveys suggested that Netflix had the opportunity to implement another rate hike in the near future. By May 2020, Netflix must decide whether to increase prices again, or whether it should consider a different pricing model altogether.